From cowan@ccil.org Sun Apr 16 23:26:21 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7563 invoked from network); 17 Apr 2000 06:26:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Apr 2000 06:26:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO locke.ccil.org) (192.190.237.102) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Apr 2000 06:26:21 -0000 Received: (from cowan@localhost) by locke.ccil.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA25436 for lojban@onelist.com; Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200004170637.CAA25436@locke.ccil.org> Subject: Re: [lojban] Interaction of SE and NAhE To: lojban@onelist.com Date: Mon, 17 Apr 100 02:37:44 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Richard Curnow" at Apr 16, 0 10:07:26 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan la xorxes. cusku di'e > > I don't think there is any difference between those > > two, because {na'e} applies to the selbri, not only > > to the first argument. {klama} and {se klama} > > represent the same relationship, and {na'e} is the > > negation of that relationship . la ritcyd. cusku di'e > OK, what Jorge is saying is that NAhE and SE can be arbitrarily flowed > across one another. This makes the whole thing much simpler than what I > had in mind, so I agree the rest of my original argument is wrong. I think Jorge is right, but for the wrong reason. na'e only applies to the following component of the selbri, not to the whole thing, as is shown by these examples on the use of na'e in two-part tanru: na'e gerku zdani: house for a non-dog gerku na'e zdani: non-house for a dog na'e ke gerku zdani: non-doghouse But where there is no tanru involvement, the place structure of "na'e broda" tends to be the same as that of "broda", so NAhE and SE can be freely interchanged. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin